The paradigm of evolution can't be fa...

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#122 Sep 5, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
I figured as muchz
Witzig!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#123 Sep 5, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You never know
FSM has meatballs.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
apple can not fall on head and at the same time at the same location fall not on head -> logic.
Physics.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
exactly one apple falls on head, not two or three or four -> mathematics.
Yup.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
correct. And if you take maths only as the study of "the framework of reality" not the framework itself, I said that almost the entire physics is based on math, not all of physics, dumbass. Almost any physical theory is described through a mathematical model, even if it contains only the simplest equation, it's also based on math, because with out math, no equation.
Math is not a necessary requirement. Simple observations are enough, no need for mathematical measurements. It IS a requirement for high-end physics were you're making very complicated predictions etc, but that doesn't make math a science in and of itself. It just makes it damn useful to science. I'm not running math down by not referring to it as a science, only putting it in its proper context.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Observation is the startin point. Both philosophy and physics work with observation. Physics describes observation if you will, philosophy tries to explain observation.
Wrong. Philosophy doesn't need observation. It can just make shite up. Science tries to explain the observation. Then tests those ideas.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
I just though I mention it, because you make similar mistakes as many atheists I know, doesn't matter if you are one or not.
You ain't been able to point to one yet.(shrug)
Freddy Quinn wrote:
pardon me?
You were flinging ad-hom poo at scientists again based on actions that have not occurred yet. You're not God. You're not Doc Brown. You're not even Marty McFly.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
So? No guarantee that it will be called abiogenesis. Have you ever heard someone calling the biblical genesis an abiogenesis?
Yup. Me. It is still linguistically sound. As the (correct) point I was making that it occurred, and the specifics of how it did are not relevant to the validity of the theory of evolution. If you wanna claim God poofed life into existence I'm cool with that. Evolution is unaffected by that.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
By the way it suprises me how you think.
The Dude abides.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
When you're talking about evolution, you basically mean the current theory of evolution. Not the general idea that life evolves, which also could include, say, some fantasy objects and fantasy physics, but only the current theory of evolution. Yet you expect me to follow you when use abiogenesis outside of the, as you call it, main hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Yes, when I speak of science I speak of current science views and consider all other views not science unless demonstrated otherwise. But if referring to alternative concepts outside mainstream scientific views I can still use the same words in their correct context but applied to other ideas. Hence a completely different nested hierarchy involving cat-men I would still refer to as evolution. Aliens starting life off I would refer to as abiogenesis. God starting life off I would refer to as abiogenesis (since all three involve the same premise - life where once there was none), and would only feel the need to refer to it as Genesis specifically if the conversation turned more towards theology. But when we're talking about claims competing with science I can view them in their scientific context and describe them accordingly.

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#124 Sep 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
FSM has meatballs.
Perhaps, I don't care.
<quoted text>
The Dude wrote:
Physics.
yep, but no logic, no physics.
<quoted text>
The Dude wrote:
Yup.
glad we agree.
<quoted text>
The Dude wrote:
Math is not a necessary requirement. Simple observations are enough, no need for mathematical measurements. It IS a requirement for high-end physics were you're making very complicated predictions etc.
Yeah well, if you consider the measurement of length and speed as high-end physics, you're probably right, I don't know.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong. Philosophy doesn't need observation. It can just make shite up. Science tries to explain the observation. Then tests those ideas.
Dumbass, I haven't said Philosophy needs observation. Philosophy works with observations, but not only that. It also works with concepts, like democracy, love, logic, science and whatnot.
<quoted text>
[QUOTE who="The Dude"]You were flinging ad-hom poo at scientists again based on actions that have not occurred yet. You're not God. You're not Doc Brown. You're not even Marty McFly.
So what. You are certainly not shy to make all kinds of accusations to creationists yourself.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. Me. It is still linguistically sound.

Linguistically, perhaps. I could also write my entire text here in latin, call the biblical genesis abiogenesis and the abiogenesis genesis.
Whatever, If you want to overcomplicate things, go ahead
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, when I speak of science I speak of current science views and consider all other views not science unless demonstrated otherwise. But if referring to alternative concepts outside mainstream scientific views I can still use the same words in their correct context but applied to other ideas. Hence a completely different nested hierarchy involving cat-men I would still refer to as evolution. Aliens starting life off I would refer to as abiogenesis. God starting life off I would refer to as abiogenesis (since all three involve the same premise - life where once there was none), and would only feel the need to refer to it as Genesis specifically if the conversation turned more towards theology. But when we're talking about claims competing with science I can view them in their scientific context and describe them accordingly.
That's only your viewpoint. But as a matter of fact their are many latin terms in english with a different meaning than the original one, and nobody would get the idea to take them for their literal meaning.
And if I starting out with abiogenesis, and it's clear to what I refer, it's just completely unnecessary.
HTS

Mandan, ND

#125 Sep 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, at this point if we are not related to apes there is something seriously wrong with the theory.
You made your false claim because you clearly do not like the theory. The fact is that it gets stronger every day
Now the exact lineage of some animals might be difficult to figure out. And in fact that does apply to humans a bit since there were more than one close relatives of man alive at one point in time. So we are not sure exactly what steps that we took from other apes to man. But there is absolutely no doubt that we are related to other apes.
Do you understand how a developing science can sometimes take a false path and may have to back up a bit? That is the sort of minor error that would not debunk evolution. What you are proposing is not a minor error.
Now there may be on perfectly good reason that you cannot debunk the theory of evolution.
If evolution is right, then no matter how hard you try you will not be able to debunk it.
Guess what no scientist has been able to do for over 150 years?
And you brought up DNA at the end of your post. If we were wrong about evolution DNA could very well have shown it. The evidence from DNA confirms evolution ten times stronger than the fossil evidence does.
Once again, if evolution was wrong DNA would almost definitely would have shown it. It did the exact opposite.
Evolution has been soundly debunked multiple times on this forum.
Your arrogant refusal to yield to scientific fact is irrelevant.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#126 Sep 5, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has been soundly debunked multiple times on this forum.
Your arrogant refusal to yield to scientific fact is irrelevant.
You are a complete and total moron who could not argue his way out of a paper bag.

You do not even understand the simple idea of scientific evidence.

I love how How's That for Stupid makes a claim that would gain the person who accomplished the said deed a Nobel Prize. I don't see any Nobel Prized being awarded to any creatards.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#127 Sep 5, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a complete and total moron who could not argue his way out of a paper bag.
You do not even understand the simple idea of scientific evidence.
I love how How's That for Stupid makes a claim that would gain the person who accomplished the said deed a Nobel Prize. I don't see any Nobel Prized being awarded to any creatards.
A noble prize!!! Hmmm I believe Obama has won one and I am not impressed by anything he has done. And no I am not replug-em-again either. I am a independent.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#128 Sep 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A noble prize!!! Hmmm I believe Obama has won one and I am not impressed by anything he has done. And no I am not replug-em-again either. I am a independent.
He does not have one in science.

Yes, sadly the "Peace Prize" is largely political and people who win them very often do not merit them, Obama is an excellent example of that.

The science prizes still have some politics, but not too much. They are fairly "pure".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#129 Sep 5, 2013
And I used to be a Republican but the continued catering to the Religious Right has turned me off from them. I don't know what I am politically now. I still tend to vote Republican but have to firmly grip my nose when I do so. Since I am in a largely Democrat state my vote really does not do too much. Though I did vote for Gay Marriage when it came around in my state.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#130 Sep 6, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
yep, but no logic, no physics.
You have that backwards.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Dumbass, I haven't said Philosophy needs observation. Philosophy works with observations, but not only that. It also works with concepts, like democracy, love, logic, science and whatnot.
Philosophy works if your philosophy says it works. But that doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality. In order to determine what reality is like we use science. Once you're doing that you're not using philosophy.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
So what. You are certainly not shy to make all kinds of accusations to creationists yourself.
They aren't accusations when I am merely describing what they are doing.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Linguistically, perhaps. I could also write my entire text here in latin, call the biblical genesis abiogenesis and the abiogenesis genesis.
Whatever, If you want to overcomplicate things, go ahead
Ain't complicated to me.(shrug)
Freddy Quinn wrote:
That's only your viewpoint. But as a matter of fact their are many latin terms in english with a different meaning than the original one, and nobody would get the idea to take them for their literal meaning.
Since Biblical interpretations also become a factor in these forums the issue of what should and should not be taken literally often tends to get rather nebulous. Hence why I can clarify my statements.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
And if I starting out with abiogenesis, and it's clear to what I refer, it's just completely unnecessary.
And if you're having trouble I explain my posts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#131 Sep 6, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution has been soundly debunked multiple times on this forum.
Your arrogant refusal to yield to scientific fact is irrelevant.
O hai Harry! I see you're still stuck in fantasy land.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#132 Sep 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And I used to be a Republican but the continued catering to the Religious Right has turned me off from them. I don't know what I am politically now. I still tend to vote Republican but have to firmly grip my nose when I do so. Since I am in a largely Democrat state my vote really does not do too much. Though I did vote for Gay Marriage when it came around in my state.
Sorry man, but as a proponent of science and the US Constitution that means you're Liberal Socialist Communist Satan-worshipping gayboy as they come.

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#133 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You have that backwards.
So I need Newton's laws to get to the law of noncontradiction? Somehow I doubt that.
The Dude wrote:
Philosophy works if your philosophy says it works. But that doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality. In order to determine what reality is like we use science. Once you're doing that you're not using philosophy.
The system of science can only examine a limited area of the overall reality. Namely, everything that can be measured and examined by the scientific method in the materialistic reality.
But it can't work with abstract ideas, for example science will never be able to measure conciousness, just as it can't work with concepts like ethics, personification, science, being, or to say it in a different way, everything that has a meaning in this world, and can't be processed empirically.
You can still work sophistically with these ideas, by defining and differenciating them from another in a clear way, and building theories by using definitions, logic and often additional assumptions, which lead to different philosophical views.
The Dude wrote:
They aren't accusations when I am merely describing what they are doing.
Well , you where accusing me for believing in some conspiracy shit, or whatever, even though I haven't said anything like that.
And I was merely stating that I believe certain scientists with a naturalistic worldview wouldn't like it if their theories were wrong. No need to blow that out of proportion.
The Dude wrote:
Ain't complicated to me.(shrug)
I don't care, write everything in latin then, whatever.
The Dude wrote:

Since Biblical interpretations also become a factor in these forums the issue of what should and should not be taken literally often tends to get rather nebulous. Hence why I can clarify my statements.
As far as I'm concerned, enough clarifiying was done in this case, actually I doubt any clarifying was needed. I think everybody here knew what I meant when I used "abiogenesis".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#134 Sep 6, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, enough clarifiying was done in this case, actually I doubt any clarifying was needed. I think everybody here knew what I meant when I used "abiogenesis".
Yes, we can understand what meaning of a word is being used by its context. Can creationists do as well?

Not so much.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#135 Sep 6, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
So I need Newton's laws to get to the law of noncontradiction? Somehow I doubt that.
Not surprisingly, the philosopher misunderstands completely. Logic, being an abstract mode of thought involving (an attempt at) reasoning, by necessity came LONG after physics. Life has been around less than 4 billion years. The universe has been around for a lot longer. So what you CLAIM to observe as a "law" of non-contradiction is really just physical characteristics of the universe.

Oh, and then you contradict yourself by believing in an internally contradictory concept of Jewish wizard.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
The system of science can only examine a limited area of the overall reality. Namely, everything that can be measured and examined by the scientific method in the materialistic reality.
But it can't work with abstract ideas, for example science will never be able to measure conciousness
Oh dear. It already HAS. Consciousness is NOT abstract. It is a physical process of the brain. Just because it is capable of conceiving abstract concepts does not make it in itself abstract.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
just as it can't work with concepts like ethics, personification
And hammers can't work with jello. It's stupid to criticize a tool for not being able to deal with things it's not supposed to deal with.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
science
Actually yes, science can deal with science.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
being, or to say it in a different way, everything that has a meaning in this world, and can't be processed empirically.
That's because "meaning" is subjective. Science deals with what's OBjective. Sure, philosophy can deal with the subjective, but that's precisely it's problem - philosophy IS subjective. While one philosophy may work for one person, it might be completely unsuitable for another.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You can still work sophistically with these ideas, by defining and differenciating them from another in a clear way, and building theories by using definitions, logic and often additional assumptions, which lead to different philosophical views.
Except due to their subjective nature no philosophy can be proven to be more valid than any other.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Well , you where accusing me for believing in some conspiracy shit, or whatever, even though I haven't said anything like that.
Of course you have. Which is why you made baseless accusations which you couldn't back up because they were based on future events which haven't happened yet based on a motive you could not demonstrate because current facts support current scientific views that you don't like for philosophical/theological reasons.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#136 Sep 6, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
And I was merely stating that I believe certain scientists with a naturalistic worldview wouldn't like it if their theories were wrong. No need to blow that out of proportion.
I didn't. YOU were the one who had to make up shite because you're not a fan of scientists who happen to be atheists. Despite the fact that even theist scientists (not counting creationists of course) don't appear to have the same concerns about the "materialist dogma" that allegedly plagues the scientific community.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
I don't care, write everything in latin then, whatever.
I write what I want. If someone else can't keep up that's their problem.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
As far as I'm concerned, enough clarifiying was done in this case, actually I doubt any clarifying was needed. I think everybody here knew what I meant when I used "abiogenesis".
And so did I. Just as I knew what I meant by abiogenesis. Just as Mike and SZ knew what I meant too. Can't speak for Repro though as he's a twonk.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#137 Sep 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we can understand what meaning of a word is being used by its context. Can creationists do as well?
Not so much.
Amen!

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#138 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not surprisingly, the philosopher misunderstands completely. Logic, being an abstract mode of thought involving (an attempt at) reasoning, by necessity came LONG after physics. Life has been around less than 4 billion years. The universe has been around for a lot longer. So what you CLAIM to observe as a "law" of non-contradiction is really just physical characteristics of the universe.
Really. So thought doesnít exist without the universe and you need to be alive to think? How do you know that? Can you be sure of what was before you were born, or what was before the universe (presumably) arised? Do you claim to know what will be when you die? Does your beloved scientific method tell you that? If so, how would you set up an experiment, to find out the answers?

After all, you can only perceive the universe with your mind, right? Does the universe actually exists for itself, or only in your mind?

But donít worry, you donít even have to occupy yourself with these questions, as not surprisingly, the scientist misunderstands completely. You seem to set physics = the universe, but what I was referring to, was physics = the study of physical phenomena. And every study, being a product of coherent thought, has to apply to the law of noncontradiction, if itís supposed to be valid (although I think there is still the incompleteness theorem of goedel Ė ask your mathfriends about that)

But still thank you, thatís just what I meant Ė taking your subjective worldview as fact.
The Dude wrote:
Oh, and then you contradict yourself by believing in an internally contradictory concept of Jewish wizard.
I donít believe in any jewish wizard. Do you know one?
The Dude wrote:
Oh dear. It already HAS. Consciousness is NOT abstract. It is a physical process of the brain. Just because it is capable of conceiving abstract concepts does not make it in itself abstract.
Is that so? How exactly do you measure the consciousness of a brain?, How do you measure it in a computer? What about a stone? What kind of instruments do you need?

How do you even know for sure, that any other human or being with the exception of yourself, has a consciousness?

Ever heard about Rene Descartes?ďI think, therefore I amĒ. You donít really know much more, without making certain assumptions, you can be sure of that.
The Dude wrote:
And hammers can't work with jello. It's stupid to criticize a tool for not being able to deal with things it's not supposed to deal with.
I have criticized science only in your imagination. Iím just describing what itís qualified for use and what not, and I like it as a tool. No more, no less.
The Dude wrote:
Actually yes, science can deal with science.
So you think when youíre discussing science, defining whatís scientific and whatís not scientific, youíre doing science? You might dislike academic philosophy, but that doesnít change the fact that youíre sort of philosophizing. Speaking about science itself is not in the area of science. Doing science is using the predefined methodology of science to examine things, and perhaps stuff related to it but thatís it. Science is a system like any other, that canít define itself.

Seriously, don't call yourself "The Dude". How about calling yourself Dawkins? He's a believer in science, just like you.

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#139 Sep 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
That's because "meaning" is subjective. Science deals with what's OBjective. Sure, philosophy can deal with the subjective, but that's precisely it's problem - philosophy IS subjective. While one philosophy may work for one person, it might be completely unsuitable for another.
<quoted text>
Except due to their subjective nature no philosophy can be proven to be more valid than any other.
Claiming that everything in philosophy is subjective, is just like claiming that mathematics is subjective, because afaik, actually, there are some subjects that are considered both related to math and to philosophy. There is probably more in Philosopy that is considered absolute or objective. Apart from that, you may be right. But you can still evaluate a philosophy if it is coherent, even if you disagree with it.

BTW Iím no philosopher myself, but I learned some stuff from philosophers I know (no creationists by the way). So don't take me as a reference. But most likely you won't anyway.
The Dude wrote:
Of course you have. Which is why you made baseless accusations which you couldn't back up because they were based on future events which haven't happened yet based on a motive you could not demonstrate because current facts support current scientific views that you don't like for philosophical/theological reasons.
For godís sake, I was merely stating my opinion that some, I repeat some scientiests , wouldnít like it if their theories would fail, because of their naturalistic worldview. Just like youíre right now accusing me of disliking the current facts for philosophical/theological reasons or any reasons without actually knowing it (where exactly have I claimed this?). So shut the fuck up. I could probably lot's of accusations from you in the last 6 pages full of polemics, Iím just too lazy to search it through.
The Dude wrote:
I write what I want. If someone else can't keep up that's their problem.
If heís interested to keep up, then yes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#140 Sep 9, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
So thought doesnít exist without the universe and you need to be alive to think? How do you know that?
Because all scientific testing done ever shows that dead people can't think.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Can you be sure of what was before you were born, or what was before the universe (presumably) arised?
You're REALLY using the 'How do you know where you there' argument?
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Do you claim to know what will be when you die? Does your beloved scientific method tell you that? If so, how would you set up an experiment, to find out the answers?
After I die my molecules will be recycled. If you shoot me you can see for yourself.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
After all, you can only perceive the universe with your mind, right? Does the universe actually exists for itself, or only in your mind?
It has existed long before I was here and will long after I'm gone.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
But donít worry, you donít even have to occupy yourself with these questions, as not surprisingly, the scientist misunderstands completely.
Sure, because we aren't asking silly questions like do trees still make a sound when they fall if no-one's there.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You seem to set physics = the universe, but what I was referring to, was physics = the study of physical phenomena. And every study, being a product of coherent thought, has to apply to the law of noncontradiction, if itís supposed to be valid (although I think there is still the incompleteness theorem of goedel Ė ask your mathfriends about that)
But still thank you, thatís just what I meant Ė taking your subjective worldview as fact.
Be specific. What worldview? What facts do you dispute?
Freddy Quinn wrote:
I donít believe in any jewish wizard. Do you know one?
I've heard of the one proposed by the religions of Abraham.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Is that so? How exactly do you measure the consciousness of a brain?, How do you measure it in a computer? What about a stone? What kind of instruments do you need?
You've seriously never heard of a brain scan?
Freddy Quinn wrote:
How do you even know for sure, that any other human or being with the exception of yourself, has a consciousness?
Because it's our arbitrary term for describing ourselves being mentally active and awake.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Ever heard about Rene Descartes?ďI think, therefore I amĒ. You donít really know much more, without making certain assumptions, you can be sure of that.
You're assuming about Rene. After all, where you there?
Freddy Quinn wrote:
I have criticized science only in your imagination.
Wrong, since it's recorded on this thread.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
So you think when youíre discussing science, defining whatís scientific and whatís not scientific, youíre doing science? You might dislike academic philosophy, but that doesnít change the fact that youíre sort of philosophizing.
No, I'm talking and saying it how it is. That's not philosophizing, that's merely describing. Your position is that the act of thinking itself is automatically philosophy, therefore takes credit for literally everything. I dispute this.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#141 Sep 9, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Speaking about science itself is not in the area of science. Doing science is using the predefined methodology of science to examine things, and perhaps stuff related to it but thatís it. Science is a system like any other, that canít define itself.
Hammers can't define themselves either. But you're telling me how do I know a hammer isn't a jelly donut when I'm not looking?
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Seriously, don't call yourself "The Dude". How about calling yourself Dawkins? He's a believer in science, just like you.
Belief is superfluous when one has evidence.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Claiming that everything in philosophy is subjective, is just like claiming that mathematics is subjective,
Wrong. Maths relies on axioms, and once they are in place your calculations will work a certain way. If not then the axioms have been changed.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
because afaik, actually, there are some subjects that are considered both related to math and to philosophy. There is probably more in Philosopy that is considered absolute or objective.
Considered, however that's their subjective opinion. Their problem is that their philosophies "must" apply to everybody, same way science should. This is not the case.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Apart from that, you may be right. But you can still evaluate a philosophy if it is coherent, even if you disagree with it.
Sure you can. But even if it is consistent one doesn't have to agree with it. That's why philosophy is subjective. Fine on a personal level, less so when claimed to apply to everyone.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
BTW Iím no philosopher myself, but I learned some stuff from philosophers I know (no creationists by the way). So don't take me as a reference. But most likely you won't anyway.
I don't use any if I can help it.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
For godís sake, I was merely stating my opinion that some, I repeat some scientiests , wouldnít like it if their theories would fail, because of their naturalistic worldview.
And I explained why your opinion was BS.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Just like youíre right now accusing me of disliking the current facts for philosophical/theological reasons or any reasons without actually knowing it (where exactly have I claimed this?). So shut the fuck up. I could probably lot's of accusations from you in the last 6 pages full of polemics, Iím just too lazy to search it through.
And I could point out lots of examples but I'm too lazy to search it through.(shrug)
Freddy Quinn wrote:
If heís interested to keep up, then yes.
Then they'll have to learn on the fly.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 54 min positronium 87,202
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr superwilly 5,811
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr Simon 166,295
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 8 hr Stargirl 1,822
What's your religion? Fri 15th Dalai Lama 766
Scientific Method Thu stinky 20
Evolving A Maze Solving Robot Feb 6 Untangler 2
More from around the web